Mark Landsbaum: Pace quickens of change imposed by government

A sign directs voters to a polling station in Tempe, Ariz., in this Nov. 2, 2010, file photo. The Supreme Court ruled June 17, 2013, that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier. ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE PHOTO

Societal change gradually morphs old values into new mores. This can make grandpa and grandma blush. Think of the sexual revolution of the '60s. Despite its appeal to freedom, it really was carte blanche for promiscuity and licentiousness, which most people today still recognize as negatives.

Government change used to lag societal change. Laws aren't respected when most people don't embrace the underlying change. Think Prohibition. So many were so resistant to the change forced upon them, there was widespread violation until the law was repealed.

Change can be good. Think of improved race relations. Was a change in law necessary? Perhaps. Did all the legal changes achieve more good than ill? Affirmative action's lofty goal, to level the playing field, necessarily discriminated against nonminorities, bumping them down on admission, hiring and promotion lists, despite being qualified. For everyone favored, someone else was discriminated against.

Change can be not so good. Think of people's willingness to trade promises of security for invasive monitoring of their personal activities. Much of what is freely shared today not long ago was deemed none of the other guy's business, especially if the other guy was the government. When created by law, your Social Security number was supposed to be limited to tracking your earnings. Today, how many agencies, public and private, routinely collect that number?

Private companies that know a lot about you can invade your privacy. But Amazon.com can't force you to act against your will, despite the wealth of information it collects on your spending, viewing and reading habits. Your relationship with the government isn't voluntary. Government can force you, ultimately, at the point of a gun, to act against your will.

Recent news items highlight some contemporary changes, which are rapidly accelerating. Increasingly, government isn't waiting for society to change first.

Last week, President Barack Obama decided the government won't oppose a decision by a federal judge to allow girls under age 15 to receive a so-called emergency contraceptive without prescription. The decision affects minors still under the legal and moral guardianship of their parents. Previously, the Obama administration drew the line at 15, which arguably is still too young. Don't think so? Ask any parent with daughters ages 15 to 17.

But you don't have to be a Victorian prude to understand that a girl of 12 or 13, or even younger, has no business needing a contraceptive. The '60s haven't changed us enough to persuade the mothers and fathers we know to agree to such sexual carte blanche for their young daughters. Governmental change has sped way past even society's rapidly changing sexual mores.

Next, consider the U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that Arizona may not require proof of citizenship from people seeking to vote in federal elections. This is change compounded.

The court found the federal government dominant when controlling borders and federal election laws. The Arizona law was a response to fears that illegal immigrants easily could cast ballots after registering to vote via the federal Motor Voter process, which requires no proof of citizenship.

The executive and judicial branches of the federal government have decided it is sufficient to ask voters, "Are you a citizen of the United States?" and require no documentary evidence. Simply by pretending to be a citizen, it is now possible for any non-American to elect our president and members of Congress. Getting a Social Security card requires more evidence. To board an airliner requires more.

Not only has the federal government forced change on Arizonans (and all states), it changed the decision of Arizonan voters, who in 2004 approved a ballot measure requiring identification to combat voter fraud. How much of a change has the government forced on the people of Arizona against their will?

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Constitution gave states the power, "to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied."

"Congressional legislation of voter qualifications was not part of the framers' design," Thomas wrote.

Finally, consider the Affordable Care Act. Promised as a great health care security blanket, it will spawn vast unintended, unpleasant consequences for millions. Obamacare will help pay health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs through taxpayer subsidies beginning next year for families with incomes of 100 percent to 250 percent of the federal poverty level.

University of Chicago economics professor Casey B. Mulligan predicts unpleasant surprises because unanticipated federal spending will be needed to pay for benefits, and the labor market will be depressed because subsidies encourage layoffs. "[W]e are about to begin a federal program that subsidizes layoffs to a degree that we have not seen before," Mulligan says.

Prodded by government change, many people will change in ways they wouldn't have if left alone.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.